I'm starting on a tactics journey; What are my weaknesses?

[jcp1417]

I've decided to finally create my own tactics rather than download ones designed to break the engine. It's time for me to start paying attention to the finer details. Does anyone see any weaknesses with my tactics? My intention is to keep possession, play through the middle, and limit good scoring chances. I chose this formation mainly to get green dots on all the roles. Thoughts?

[Old Scouser Tommy]

20 minutes ago, jcp1417 said:

My intention is to keep possession, play through the middle, and limit good scoring chances. I chose this formation mainly to get green dots on all the roles.

You've asked your goalkeeper to basically launch the ball to your Targetman though which won't keep possession. Also why do you want to fill the green dots as you say? Just because the "Green Dot" isn't filled doesn't mean that player can't play a role it just means he'll play a specific role based on the stats he has. You've also got noone holding in the middle of your midfield. Both those roles are runner or creator roles and neither will sit there and provide defensive cover.

[jcp1417]

35 minutes ago, Old Scouser Tommy said:

You've asked your goalkeeper to basically launch the ball to your Targetman though which won't keep possession. Also why do you want to fill the green dots as you say? Just because the "Green Dot" isn't filled doesn't mean that player can't play a role it just means he'll play a specific role based on the stats he has. You've also got noone holding in the middle of your midfield. Both those roles are runner or creator roles and neither will sit there and provide defensive cover.

see that's what I need, lol. Ok so I've removed the distribute to target man, should I try to play out of defense or should I just allow to keeper to distribute it where he wants?

What do you mean exactly by runner or creator? Should I have one of my CM set to BWM-D, DLP-D, or CM-D? How would I decide between the three other than picking the one that my player is most suitable for?

[Old Scouser Tommy]

Both of your central midfielders are basically attacking. Your Mezzala is basically an attacking playmaking role who will move into spaces between defenders and fullbacks and of course your CM on attack is attacking. You basically need someone to sit and provide some cover. CMd or DLPd or BWMd will help to do that. Although I tend not to use a BWM as he can vacate his position to try and win the ball. It all depends on the other roles around it though but wouldn't be my first choice.

Playing out of defence will of course help you to keep possession and is an instruction I use in my tactics. In fact at the moment in my Wolves save it's the only in possession TI I'm using. You can select shorter passing to help keep possession as well. Lower tempo can help too but all the roles and duties and roles you select can have some bearing. What kind of possession do you want? My Wolves side have around 55% to 65% on average and that is fine for me and what I want to achieve. Possession in the wrong areas is pointless as far as my thinking goes.

[jcp1417]

1 hour ago, Old Scouser Tommy said:

Both of your central midfielders are basically attacking. Your Mezzala is basically an attacking playmaking role who will move into spaces between defenders and fullbacks and of course your CM on attack is attacking. You basically need someone to sit and provide some cover. CMd or DLPd or BWMd will help to do that. Although I tend not to use a BWM as he can vacate his position to try and win the ball. It all depends on the other roles around it though but wouldn't be my first choice.

Playing out of defence will of course help you to keep possession and is an instruction I use in my tactics. In fact at the moment in my Wolves save it's the only in possession TI I'm using. You can select shorter passing to help keep possession as well. Lower tempo can help too but all the roles and duties and roles you select can have some bearing. What kind of possession do you want? My Wolves side have around 55% to 65% on average and that is fine for me and what I want to achieve. Possession in the wrong areas is pointless as far as my thinking goes.

Thank you for that! I can experiment between CM and DLP to see what works better for my players. As far as my possession numbers go, I'd like to see above 55% for sure and further up the pitch if possible. 

[Old Scouser Tommy]

DLP will in my experience keep possession a little more as the players around him will focus play toward him a bit more  CMd will just just defend and play things more simply. Experimenting is the best way to find out how things work. As I said the roles and duties of the the whole system and the players you have will dictate how things work.

This is how I currently setup. It works for the moment and things change game to game but this is basically how things start out. Until the next transfer window and I can get rid of and bring in the players I need for the specific roles I want this will kinda do and has taken me to 3rd in the Premier League after 32 games. It's just what works for your players to begin with until you can bring in or train players to fit how you want to play.

For the record I love the Mezzala role and how it links up with the AP on the left.

[jcp1417]

Winning 1-0 with 59% possession was a delight but they were able to get off quite a bit more shots than I would have liked. My keeper was spectacular. My tackling and headers were very bad. But, I beat a team that recently beat me 5-0 so that was nice

[Luizinho]

Your team will look to hit your Targetman quite frequently (it's a hardcoded mechanic of the role), so just bear that in mind. If you find you're  giving away possession to cheaply by playing it into him, then it might be worth changing the role. That said, it can also be really effective as your last game showed- so perhaps only tweak it if you see fit 

Another observation would be a lack of commitment offensively. Ask yourself how do I see my team scoring goals? With a lot of support and defence duties, your team will play patient possession football, which will give the support roles time to join the attack which is great. However there may be times when you need a more direct/immediate goal threat from deep. A player that can push forward with regularity. An AP(A) is a goal threat, however can 'sit in the hole' quite a bit and not get into the box as much as you'd want. Again, play it by ear perhaps.

[Dfs]

As @Old Scouser Tommy said green dots dont matter. As far as I know the only thing that has any influence on match engine is position familiarity so if someone is natural as MC he wont get any kind of match engine punishment for playing in a role that he s not familiar with so only think that matter is stats. Also the difference between natural and accomplished is impossible to notice.

As for the tactic, Im not the biggest fan of not having any defender at least on support and it seems to me that because of that in your tactic there s a huge dependence on your dlpd to link play. Changing one of fullbacks to support could give you another sensible route to advance the ball forward. Also a question, do dlpd and inverted wingback get in each other s spaces a bit or not?

Other than that the setup is nice. It seems you try to control possession so maybe you could try decreasing passing directness too and see what happens. I usually dont like symetric roles on both wings but here I assume it could work, wingers on support should cross from deep a lot and your target man should sit in line with the defence to be able to connect with some of those headers. But if you notice him dropping too deep than probably changing to advanced forward or poacher could work.

[FMunderachiever]

I would think scoring goals will become an issue with this tactic. Unless you are looking to combine your "look for set pieces" instruction with some nice set piece routines and good headers from corners and free kicks.

I think the lack of anyone running in behind is the main issue for me. Also players not getting in and around the target man picking up second balls.

 

 

[jcp1417]

3 hours ago, Dfs said:

Changing one of fullbacks to support could give you another sensible route to advance the ball forward. Also a question, do dlpd and inverted wingback get in each other s spaces a bit or not?

yes they do! Definitely should change that. i'm thinking making the LCM the DLP instead?

[Experienced Defender]

15 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

I chose this formation mainly to get green dots on all the roles

A mistake. Don't pay attention to the green dots, but to players' attributes and traits (and sometimes even footedness). These will tell you if a player should be played in a certain role. Green dots are sometimes correct, but can at times be rather misleading. 

 

15 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

 

15 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

Does anyone see any weaknesses with my tactics? My intention is to keep possession, play through the middle, and limit good scoring chances

The first thing I would suggest is to remove the Prevent short GKD. Because it makes little sense when you have only 2 players up front, and can make you defensively more exposed by encouraging your midfielders (most likely the wingers) to step up and press the opposition fullbacks, thus leaving a gap behind themselves.

Then your both CMs are overly attack-minded, which is a defensive no-no in no-DM systems like 442, 4411 or 4231. The mezzala on support can remain, as he is covered by an IWB on defend behind him. But the CM on attack should be a lot more conservative and played in a holding role (my preference would be a standard CM on defend).

If you want to keep possession, then the AMC can be a playmaker, but more preferably on support duty. So AP on support instead of attack (with the Roam from position PI added, to allow him as much freedom of movement as possible as your main creative outlet). Or you can even make him a quasi-PM by playing him in a standard AM role (on support) with PIs take more risks and (again) roam from position.

While the RB as an IWB on defend duty is a good choice as the cover for the mezzala, the other fullback should not be that much defense-minded (unless you want to play a rather defensive style of football with hopeful counter-attacks via long/direct balls hoofed over the top). 

Furthter, if you want to keep possession (play possession-based football I guess?), then distribution to TM makes absolutely no sense. And I am not even sure that you need a TM as a role for your lone striker. 

All in all, your tactic - and especially the setup of roles and duties - does not actually suit possession-based football. If you want to make it more possession-oriented, this is an example of how you could set it up:

PO/PFat

AP/AMsu

IWsu      CMde    MEZsu    Wat

 

WB/FBsu   CD    CD    IWBde

GK/SKde

Balanced mentality is a good starting point, so I would keep it (at least for now).

In terms of team instructions, I would start with as few and simple ones as possible:

- shorter passing

- no TIs in transition

- no TIs out of possession

Then I would watch carefully what happens and gradually add small tweaks as I (you) see fit.

These potential tweaks may include TIs such as: play out of defence, overlap right and regroup (you don't have to use them on all at once). 

Combinations of DL and LOE I would consider are the following:

- both on standard (default)

- higher DL / standard LOE (potentially risky if your defenders are not fast and/or intelligent enough)

- higher DL / higher LOE (but this one can be a bit too risky if your players aren't good enough)

However, when I look at your Team report, I fear that possession-based football may not be the best idea for you to play 

[jcp1417]

3 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

A mistake. Don't pay attention to the green dots, but to players' attributes and traits (and sometimes even footedness). These will tell you if a player should be played in a certain role. Green dots are sometimes correct, but can at times be rather misleading. 

 

 

The first thing I would suggest is to remove the Prevent short GKD. Because it makes little sense when you have only 2 players up front, and can make you defensively more exposed by encouraging your midfielders (most likely the wingers) to step up and press the opposition fullbacks, thus leaving a gap behind themselves.

Then your both CMs are overly attack-minded, which is a defensive no-no in no-DM systems like 442, 4411 or 4231. The mezzala on support can remain, as he is covered by an IWB on defend behind him. But the CM on attack should be a lot more conservative and played in a holding role (my preference would be a standard CM on defend).

If you want to keep possession, then the AMC can be a playmaker, but more preferably on support duty. So AP on support instead of attack (with the Roam from position PI added, to allow him as much freedom of movement as possible as your main creative outlet). Or you can even make him a quasi-PM by playing him in a standard AM role (on support) with PIs take more risks and (again) roam from position.

While the RB as an IWB on defend duty is a good choice as the cover for the mezzala, the other fullback should not be that much defense-minded (unless you want to play a rather defensive style of football with hopeful counter-attacks via long/direct balls hoofed over the top). 

Furthter, if you want to keep possession (play possession-based football I guess?), then distribution to TM makes absolutely no sense. And I am not even sure that you need a TM as a role for your lone striker. 

All in all, your tactic - and especially the setup of roles and duties - does not actually suit possession-based football. If you want to make it more possession-oriented, this is an example of how you could set it up:

PO/PFat

AP/AMsu

IWsu      CMde    MEZsu    Wat

 

WB/FBsu   CD    CD    IWBde

GK/SKde

Balanced mentality is a good starting point, so I would keep it (at least for now).

In terms of team instructions, I would start with as few and simple ones as possible:

- shorter passing

- no TIs in transition

- no TIs out of possession

Then I would watch carefully what happens and gradually add small tweaks as I (you) see fit.

These potential tweaks may include TIs such as: play out of defence, overlap right and regroup (you don't have to use them on all at once). 

Combinations of DL and LOE I would consider are the following:

- both on standard (default)

- higher DL / standard LOE (potentially risky if your defenders are not fast and/or intelligent enough)

- higher DL / higher LOE (but this one can be a bit too risky if your players aren't good enough)

However, when I look at your Team report, I fear that possession-based football may not be the best idea for you to play 

Thanks for the lengthy response! I do know that green dots should not be taken as the gospel, but shouldn't I consider them a bit since they are suppose to represent how players play in that role?

So I have made the changes to my roles and will see how it goes, but what do you think about putting 2 strikers up top instead of the AM? I actually do have two relatively good ST. Would a PF-a and a PO-a work well?

[jcp1417]

btw, I really appreciate everyone's constructive criticism. No one has insulted me and called me an idiot, though I probably am, lol.

match update: 

I'm doing really well right now, but they just got off a spectacular opportunity where their keeper lobbed it in front of the highlighted player, but my keeper made an amazing save. how do i prevent those? is my line too high? Also, why were my CB's in the FB positions and the FB's in the middle??

 

[lferreira]

15 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

Winning 1-0 with 59% possession was a delight but they were able to get off quite a bit more shots than I would have liked. My keeper was spectacular. My tackling and headers were very bad. But, I beat a team that recently beat me 5-0 so that was nice

I'd make some observations:

- How do you want to score and who is going to score? You have two players on attacking duties in the middle and the rest is on support, meaning they will take more promising positions forward but will have to make a side pass or pass it back (unless your AP can find the TM, but then again, if you play direct, he will have to be really good at holding the ball until the support arrives)

- Why the IWB on D for the RB? You have a DLP-D on the same side, meaning you he will cover for your fullback - you could try a fullback on support or even some overlapping for more variety)

- How do you want to win the ball back and where? You've managed 7 tackles the whole game, which probably means you were a little too passive on defense, especially taking into consideration they had nine shots on target and over 20 attempts for the match.

- There is a difference between playing possession football just for the possession and actually attacking your opponent. What I mean is, with two wingers and two advanced players in the middle, you could definitely try to counter, but what happens is that you win the ball back and when you do so, your players will choose to pass it around more patiently while the opponent is still regrouping. If you see they are out of position, you want to take advantage of that.

Of course, these are some things for you to think about, but I wouldn't go changing it altogether. I can say tho, that you will have to be more proactive playing home. When I play that formation, I try to go with something like this:

GK - De (if you want to play a lower D-line, otherwise go SK)

RB: FB-Su + overlap or FB-At

Defenders: CD-De or one BPD-De (if you have a good passer with vision, decisions, first touch)

LB: FB-Su or De (adjust as you watch the game and see if your CM-Su is leaving you too exposed)

MCR - DLP-D

MCL - CM-Su or BBM

RW - IW-Su

LW - W-At

AMC - AM-Su (having a DLP and an AP close to each other on the pitch is overkill and they're both ball magnets, you want your other players trying to create as well)

ST - TM (At) or Poacher/AF (At) (whatever works better, if your guy has pace and good off the ball use him as an AF, otherwise don't)

I'd leave pressing on standard, but take the defensive line to higher and LoE to higher as well, asking some players to press more - your ST/AM and your wingers. I'd also use counter press and the counter instruction.

Again, these are some tips, but ultimately you have to think of how roles play off each other and the passing options your players will have.

A simple example: in this formation, your team might play more towards the right because the DLP is on the right and he will have many other options next to him, whereas the wide left players might become too isolated, so a probable solution would be to ask your CM-Su to stay wider or roam from position to explore the space on the left and have your BPD as a DCL.

Now your DLP-D will drop deep to have the ball and he will be able to find either the IW-Su (I like to tell this player to sit narrower) or the CM-Su, who can then unleash the left winger or pass it to the AM (who will also drop deep and support play in the middle from time to time). 

Hope it helps!

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

I do know that green dots should not be taken as the gospel, but shouldn't I consider them a bit since they are suppose to represent how players play in that role?

You should not completely disregard them of course, but you should primarily look at a player's attribute ratings and traits. Plus, bear in mind that most players can successfully play more than one role in a certain position, and some can even play quite a few. As important, besides the likelihood that a player would successfully play in a certain role, you always need to make sure the role itself (as well as duty) is compatible with the rest of your tactical setup (from both attacking and defensive perspectives). 

 

2 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

So I have made the changes to my roles and will see how it goes, but what do you think about putting 2 strikers up top instead of the AM? I actually do have two relatively good ST. Would a PF-a and a PO-a work well?

There is nothing wrong with 2 (or even 3) striker systems as long as the setup as a whole is well-balanced, sensible and logical. A combo of PFat and PO can work well in a counter-attacking type of tactic, provided other settings also suit such a style of play. For a possession-based style however, that type of striker combo is not a good idea IMHO. 

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

 

2 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

2 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

I'm doing really well right now, but they just got off a spectacular opportunity where their keeper lobbed it in front of the highlighted player, but my keeper made an amazing save. how do i prevent those? is my line too high?

Since I don't know your players, I can only assume that your defenders aren't good enough to play on a higher DL. Also, get stuck in is another risky instruction, especially when you play with a higher DL. 

 

2 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

why were my CB's in the FB positions and the FB's in the middle??

That's really strange, and I honestly have no idea why that happened.

[Dfs]

10 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

yes they do! Definitely should change that. i'm thinking making the LCM the DLP instead?

Yes exactly how I imagined that!

5 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

Also, why were my CB's in the FB positions and the FB's in the middle??

I assume it was after corner and Ive noticed that recently in my team to. My FBs stay back and after the keeper catches the ball my CDs run back and occupy usual FBs spaces for a moment and when they decide its safe than they swap.

In general its nice that you re doing really well so now you re in comfortable position where you can just make small changes and observe their effect its so much easier this way than when you have to overhaul your whole tactic!

Regarding playing with higher dline, its true it might be too hard for your cds, it requires them to either both be relatively fast or for both of them to have great mental stats (but then you have to play with offside trap). And when you add to this that they also have to have at least good jumping reach than thats a lot of requirements...

[jcp1417]

3 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

There is nothing wrong with 2 (or even 3) striker systems as long as the setup as a whole is well-balanced, sensible and logical. A combo of PFat and PO can work well in a counter-attacking type of tactic, provided other settings also suit such a style of play. For a possession-based style however, that type of striker combo is not a good idea IMHO. 

what would a balanced combo be?

[lferreira]

22 minutes ago, jcp1417 said:

what would a balanced combo be?

You would want one guy dropping deep to help with playmaking and another one being a more focal point, getting on the end of crosses/loose balls in a more traditional partnership.

I use a F9 and an AF myself, but you need the right players. I don't know if it's just me, but every time I use a guy who's unsuited to play the F9 he doesn't drop deep, even if he has the stats. I'm guessing a CF-Su + AF-A can work too.

I've occasionally used two PF-Su with pacey, hardworking players and it was great seeing them help the defense and then rush taking the ball forward on the counter.

[sporadicsmiles]

13 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

Also, why were my CB's in the FB positions and the FB's in the middle??

A set piece before, with your CBs recovering but the AI using the ball too quickly for everyone to get back into correct positions. Players out of position is preferable to nobody in any position trying to reform. To stop goals like that you can drop your defensive line (less likely to get the ball over the top) or try to play an offside trap.

I'd echo not paying attention to the green dots really. I do not think any of the players in my current save are fully green for their position or role, but we won the league. You need to look at attributes to decide if a player can do a role. A player with 5 tackling is going to be a crappy BWM. A player with poor vision a bad playmaker. A player with 15 tackling 15 vision can be a good playermaker you also trust defensively, or a good BWM who can also spot a pass. Likewise, a right footed winger on the left is unlikely to work too well. Understand what you want each role to do, and work out what attributes will help. This will allow you to pick your side.

If you are going to have a CM(D) on the left, you are freeing up somebody else to be more aggressive. He will give you a deep pivot in attack, and a central body in transition. So you can afford to make someone a bit more adventurous. I think the right side of your side looks quite nice. You have players attacking the wide area and the right channel, with a playmaker to distribute, and an IWB(D) to help out recycling the ball (I find this position is annoying to pick up if the AI uses it). The left is a little threadbare. The IW is a good idea (or anyone looking to hit the box, they will find space, because you are creating if with the right flank of your side. But that is it. There is not much going on there. Perhaps a more adventurous full back? Stretch the pitch on the left too (this is a very me thing to suggest, because I tend to stretch the pitch to provide central space). You could use this sparingly if you are unconvinced about your team's ability to defend. Bring it out when you search for a goal, or when you are dominating but failing to find a way through.